So, which disqualifies her the most: racial bigotry, stunning incompetence, or disrespect for the Constitution?

Obama's pick is just as competent, trustworthy, and good for the nation as his AG and Treasury picks

So, Obama decided to just throw another one in the face of Constitution-loving, freedom-loving Americans, just to remind us that he won. Big surprise, that. He picked a tax cheat of dubious skill to run Treasury. He picked a crook and Clintonista bagman for Attorney General. And so on – a cabinet and administration full of stooges, yes-men, crooks, and thugs.

So since nothing else about the office of the President of the United States is sacred, why would he not use his constitutionally mandated power to nominate to the Supreme Court of the United States a person so desperately lacking in judicial timbre that people of reason stand amazed, mouths open in awe.

She’s an incompetent student of the Constitution.

In 5 years as a District Judge and 11 years as a judge on the Second Circuit, she’s had 7 decisions that were reviewed by the Supreme Court. 6 were overturned. The 7th was affirmed, but the court specifically rejected (unanimously) her reasoning.

Think about that for a second. Ruth Bader “former ACLU general counsel” Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, and David “eminent domain” Souter — a motley crew that can find emanations, vapors, penumbras, and whole-cloth invented rights with the best of them — rejected her reasoning. In a court system fouled by leftists, she can’t seem to even meet their standards for fair application of the law.

…nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.
.
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.”
*snip*
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details.

This from her political kindred spirits.

She sees the bench as a vehicle to legislate and impose policy, regardless of what the Constitution and duly enacted laws say.

She’s a garden-variety race-hustling bigot.

You should read the transcript of this lecture she gave at the Cal-Berkeley Law School in 2001. You should read every word of this thoroughly bigoted piece of rotting carp that probably went over well, considering where it was delivered. From top to bottom it advocated the notion that the judiciary was only fair insomuch as the racial and gender makeup of the judiciary approached that of the population. It said, in so many words, that only women and minorities were truly capable of rendering justice. This whopper has already been made famous:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

.
To quote one of my RedState colleagues:

So she explicitly rejects, more than once, the idea that there is an objective standard in judging that should be aspired to by judges. She says that judgment springs primarily from experience, and secondarily from one’s inborn cultural and racial tendencies. She accepts with complete comfort that a white male judge and a black or Latina judge will reach different decisions when judging the same facts and the same law. Ergo, judging definitionally is of a higher quality when there are more female and colored judges.

Sum : FAIL

America deserves better. This is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. She’s demonstrated no qualifications other than being incompetent, activist, and bigoted.
.
.
[UPDATE] And the fun is just beginning. There’s a Soros connection, kids. Stay tuned!